18 Aug THE SHABBOS FERRY

I. Ferries on Shabbos
There have been times
in history when Jewish
communities have settled
on different sides of a
river. The question arose
whether people could cross
the river on Shabbos. Of
course, if there is a bridge that you can walk
across then the issue is fairly simple. As
long as you don’t travel outside the techum
Shabbos (roughly 6/10 of a mile from the
boundary), there isn’t a problem. However,
bridges can be expensive. Small towns
might use other options that raise halachic
questions.
A ferry is a boat that is manually driven back
and forth across the river, from side to side.
In contrast, a reaction ferry is connected by
cable to each side of the river and floats from
side to side. Primarily, the reaction ferry
is propelled by the water current but may
be steered or pushed by a driver. It barely
requires any human intervention. Are you
allowed to use a reaction ferry to cross a river
on Shabbos?
In 1706, Rav Mordechai Ziskind Rotenberg
(Maharam Ziskind) was asked about a
community in which a small river split the
town. When the town’s bridge broke, they

established a reaction ferry in which the
sailor moves the boat only by pulling on the
cable that spans across the river. Can the
few Jews on one side of the river use the
ferry on Shabbos to go to shul? The ferry is
the only way they can pray with a minyan.
Maharam Ziskind notes that the Ran says
that the practice is to establish residency on
a boat as Shabbos begins — even lighting
candles on the boat — and then returning the
next day to travel on the boat. In this way,
they do not violate the techum (boundary)
of Shabbos because their techum is on the
boat. However, Maharam Ziskind says that
according to the Ran, a reaction ferry should
be permitted even without establishing
residency on the boat because the travel
is completely within the techum of a small
town. However, he declines to permit this
practice because Rema does not endorse
this view but rather just says not to object if
people follow it. Additionally, he suggests
that the reason to establish residency on the
boat is not to move your techum to the boat.
Rather, it is because once you establish your
residency on the boat, when you return to the
boat on Shabbos day, you are entering your
“house”. Therefore, you would need to light
Shabbos candles on the ferry and then return
during the day.

Additionally, Maharam
Ziskind says that this
would only be allowed
in order to do a mitzvah.
However, he quotes
Rav Ya’akov Moelin
(Maharil, 15th cen.,
Germany; Eruvin, par. 7)
who astonishingly says
that going to shul is not
a sufficient mitzvah to
allow making an eruv
techumin. He was challenged that attending
shul should at least be as much a mitzvah as
attending a celebration. He responded that
it is not because you can pray at home. And
you can see this from the fact that the Sages
allowed hiring gentile musicians to play at a
wedding meal on Shabbos but did not allow
that in shul (contrary to the argument of the
early Reformers). Maharam Ziskind argues
based on this statement of Maharil that going
to shul is not a sufficient mitzvah to allow
riding a ferry even if you light Shabbos
candles on the boat. Although note that by
this time, Rav Avraham Gombiner’s Magen
Avraham had been published over a decade
earlier, in which the authority disagrees
with the Maharil (415:2). Later authorities
generally follow Rav Gombiner and not
Maharil (see Mishnah Berurah 415:4).
III. The Koblenz Ferry
Rav Chaim Yair Bacharach (17th cen.,
Germany; Chavos Yair, no. 115 [112 in
old editions]) was contacted by a rich man
who lived just across the Rhine river from
Koblenz, Germany, where Rav Bacharach
once served as the rabbi. Most of the year,
there was a bridge made of large boats
across the river. However, for about three
months a year, there was ice flowing down
the river that threatened the boats. Instead,
there were ferries that took people across.
Can the rich man hire in advance a ferry
to take him across on Shabbos so he can
attend shul? Like Maharam Ziskind, Rav
Bacharach quotes the Maharil and says that
attending shul is not enough of a mitzvah to
allow this. Even if this man is the tenth and
without him there would be no minyan in
town, and even on Rosh Hashanah (if this
was an issue), he would not be allowed to
take a ferry across the river to attend shul.
However, if there are reaction ferries built
as flat rafts on top of boats that move almost
entirely on their own, Rav Bacharach allows
a Jew to go on such a ferry if the Jew enters
the boat without saying anything to the
ferry driver and only uses on it in order to
attend shul (and return). Part of the reason
to allow this is that it does not look like any
other kind of boat. Apparently, this did not
serve the needs of the rich man in Koblenz
because he asked the same question to
another rabbi of Koblenz, who joined the
community a few decades later.

In 1698, a year after beginning to serve as
rabbi of Koblenz, Rav Ya’akov Poppers
was asked this same question and he
sent his proposed responsum to a higher
rabbinic authority who replied with his own
responsum (Responsa Shav Ya’akov, no. 16).
Rav Poppers leans towards permitting usage
of the reaction ferry if there are also gentile
passengers so that any work would be done
even without the Jewish passenger — and
even this would be allowed only if the Jew
establishes residency on the boat as Shabbos
begins. However, his correspondent does not
allow even that and therefore Rav Poppers
refuses to rule leniently in practice.
IV. Conclusion
Rav Gershon Ashkenazi (17th cen., Germany;
Avodas Ha-Gershuni, no. 123) was also asked
about using a reaction ferry on Shabbos. He
replies that using such a ferry on Shabbos
is rabbinically forbidden because it still is
boat travel, which is forbidden. Additionally,
even though a reaction ferry can travel across
the river on its own, in practice the ferry
driver uses a paddle-like tool to guide the
boat which is forbidden on Shabbos. Rav
Ashkenazi only allows a doctor to use a ferry
for someone sick, even not life-threatening,
because for such a person one may violate a
rabbinic prohibition.
However, Rav Nesanel Weil (the Korban
Nesanel, 18th cen., Germany; Nesiv Chaim,
248) permits using a reaction ferry if you
establish residency on the boat. Rav Weil’s
son found this practice in the city Komik near
the Moldau (Vltava) river. The father and son
exchanged a number of letters on the subject.
The father adopts Maharam Ziskind’s and
Rav Ya’akov Poppers’ lenient considerations
and rules leniently. He also notes that really
he is only justifying a practice that exists in
many communities.
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai (Chida,
18th cen., Israel; Machazik Berachah 248:3)
concludes that the vast majority of authorities
rule strictly on this issue despite Rav Weil’s
leniency. Similarly, Rav Chaim Mordechai
Margoliyos (19th cen., Poland; Sha’arei
Teshuvah, Orach Chaim 399:16) concludes
that you should refrain from using a reaction
ferry whenever there is not a clear mitzvah
need.